tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC March 11, 2010 9:00pm-10:00pm EST
health care system and all the insurance there is sold by the government. rush limbaugh endorsed single payer. thank you for your attention and for all of your kind words about my father's health. as was once said by george m. cohan, my father thanks you and i thank you. the rachel maddow show is next. for lawrence o'donnell, i'm keith olbermann, good night and good luck. good evening from washington, d.c. where the political fight to reform health care at last appears to be in the homestretch. today the speaker of the house, nancy pelosi granted me a one-on-one interview at the capitol. tonight we present mrs. pelosi's thoughts about everything from the immediate future of health reform to the once but no longer
obstacle that was congressman bart stupak. to the kerfuffle over eric massa's resignation and the bush administration trampling of the constitution. it is all ahead one-on-one with the most powerful woman in america. we begin tonight right here in washington where the road to finishing off president obama's biggest domestic policy item took a few sharp turns. the top democrat in the senate harry reid made official something that has long been speculated about. he informed his republican counterpart in the senate, mitch mcconnell that democrats will, they will use reconciliation rules to pass the final fixes to health reform. the process can be finished with 51 votes instead of 60. we've long thought that might happen. now we know that it will. everybody freak out. meanwhile, on the other side of the capitol, democrats huddled
to go through the language of the bill they are going to have to pass in order to get this done. one major headline from the house side today, the democratic leadership is ready to call the bluff of congressman bart stupak and the mysterious unnamed group of democrats he says are willing to vote against the entire health reform bill if it is not changed to turn it into a vehicle for drastically restricting access to the legal procedure that is abortion. house leaders have reportedly concluded they cannot change the abortion language in the bill and are willing to move on with or without bart stupak and whoever it is that is really with bart stupak. stepping out of that dramatic caucus meeting to talk to us was the democratic house speaker nancy pelosi. do you have an expectation of when something will be passed the house?
>> well, our time table starts when the congressional budget office gives us our score. i know that is very inside process. but the policy has to spring from the numbers. we must reduce the deficit. we will by $1 hoon billion at least in the first ten years, $1 trillion in the second ten years. for no other reason to do health care reform it's to lower the cost because the current system is unsustainable to individuals, to families, to businesses, to our federal budget and state and local budgets and also to our economy which cannot be as competitive as we need to be with this anvil of health care costs around us. senator kennedy last year at that summit meeting he came in, made a grand entrance and said i've come to sign up as a foot solder in the battle to get health care for all americans as a right, not a privilege.
this is a value for us, as he said, this is not about the provisions of any bill. it is about the character of our country. so with that inspiration, the president's leadership, the urgency from the cost standpoint and what that means to america's families, we're ready to go with our bill and that is where our focus, our energy, our time is spent. >> you, of course, have expressed confidence you will get it passed in the house. of course, it was narrow passage, a couple votes to spare a couple times around. >> may i just say, every bill is a heavy lift. there is not one easy bill. >> let me ask you about one -- >> every bill is a heavy lift. when you have the votes you take the votes and you win. never expect it to be easy. >> let me ask you about one member of your caucus who is trying to make it heavier. congressman stupak from michigan, somebody who we have talked about a lot on my program. when he says that the senate
bill as currently written spends federal money on abortion. is he telling the truth? >> well, let me say that i have the highest regard for congressman stupak. he is a valued member of the congress and the energy and commerce committee on which he serves. the facts are these. first of all, there is no federal funding of abortion in the legislation. it is the law of the land we are prohibited from spending federal funds on abortion and that is consistent in this bill. there are, one, no federal funding of abortion in the legislation. secondly, if you agree that is important and secondly not have increase or diminishment of the right to choose, that's neutral in that respect. no federal funding, no change in the woman's right to choose more or less and third, that you want to pass a health care bill then
we have the opportunity for you to do that. there's no federal funding on abortion. >> so he is wrong when he says that there is. >> yes. but let me say this, if he wants to read certain things into it you could say there is federal funding on abortion if there is a tax deduction for a woman to have a health insurance plan that allows for reproductive health services in it. in any event, no federal funding, no change in status of a woman's right to choose. you want to pass health care reform you can do it here. >> one of the ways that congressman stupak has made such a splash with this allegation, which, again, you say is not based in fact. his allegation that there is federal funding for abortion in the senate language, one of the ways he made a splash is saying he speaks for a dozen members of congress who will not vote for health reform unless his language is added to the bill. have those supposed dozen
members come an addressed those issues with you or with their office? have you dealt directly with congressman stupak on this. >> with all due respect to your question, rachel. this bill is not about abortion. this is about health care for all americans. those who want the bill to fail hijacked the good intentions of others who have concern about federal funding for abortion and turn it into a conversation about that. the more we talk about that, the less we talk about innovation, wellness, affordability, access for those who have not been able to access health care before. holding insurance companies accountable. ending denial of access to health care because of preexisting condition, capping the premiums but not capping the benefits either annually or on a life time basis about what it does for children and young people to stay on their parents' policy until they are 26 years
old, what it does for seniors in terms of closing the doughnut hole, which you are not, but i am, you know that making purchasing prescription drugs more affordable. if you are a woman, women have so much to gain from this bill. right now being a woman is a preexisting medical condition. if you are a woman and are child bearing age, you have children, it is a preexisting condition. if you are a victim of domestic abuse, it is a preexisting condition. you can't -- everybody has so much to gain from this, small businesses, seniors young people, women our economy. think of an economy where people could be, an artist or photographer or a writer, without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance or that people
could start a business and be entrepreneurial and take risk but not job loss because of a child with asthma or someone is bipolar. job locking. think of a situation where we don't have this weight on us that other businesses don't have in other countries because they don't have this expense of health care which will be reined in, those costs under this bill. we cannot afford the status quo. we will make this difference and it will make a wonderful difference in the lives of our people and the vitality of our economy. that's what we want people to talk about. >> that is the pro-health care reform stance, put as well as i think i have heard anybody put it. the concern for people who want
what you just described is there are people trying to hijack it. the prospects of getting health reform done are in the house. senator reid saying there is going to be reconciliation in the senate. a 50-vote threshold to pass fixes for the bill. >> which is a great statement. i'm glad to hear that. >> it says a lot about likelihood of passage. all eyes on the house. you have expressed confidence. i have focused a lot on bart stupak who has tried to hijack the debate and make it a abortion debate not health care debate. >> bart stew spach wants health care reform. i don't think he is part, that he himself would be one to say i'm taking down health care reform. but i think others who are part of that, who have stronger connections to the republican party, do want to bring down the bill -- >> republicans want to bring
down the bill or other democrats? >> no. republicans. the democrats want a bill. i don't think there is any question in our caucus about our commitment to that. i cannot let the good intentions on some on a subject that is very important to them be hijacked by those who do not want health care reform. >> i cannot let the good intentions of some on a subject very important to them be hijacked by those who do not want health care reform. in other words nancy pelosi telling me she will not let bart stupak's heartfelt if misguided anti-abortion intentions be hijacked by republicans who want to use him to kill health reform. it is clear mr. stupak is not going to be able to kill health reform. his shot at doing so ended today. speaker pelosi telling me today and congressman homerunry waxman
telling the associated press, they expect mr. stupak and others voting for health care reform in tend but if they don't, so what? the associated press reporting house leadership does not intend to negotiate with or appease congressman stupak. they intend to move forward regardless. speaker of the house nancy pelosi making clearer than clear in my interview with her that mr. stupak is wrong when there is a federal funding on abortion issue. speaker pelosi complimentary of mr. stupak but dodging my question whether she has seen flesh-and-blood evidence of the others he speaks for. bart stupak's bluff has been called. federal funding for abortion in the bill is not true. the fix can't be done. it is not a budget thing.
only budget things can be tacked on to the bill through reconciliation. bart stupak still not names the people he supposedly speaks for. house leadership saying it is not the 12 he has been bragging about, maybe four or five. house leadership no longerer n entertaining bart stupak. they are not negotiating with him and they expect him to vote for the bill anyway. bart stupak's 15 minutes is up. it was fun while it lasted. we'll be right back.
berringer were rear ended by a fully loaded tractor trailer. mrs. reid has a broken nose, broken back and broken neck. lana has a back injury and facial lacerations. according to doctors their injuries are nonlife threatening. senator reid has been to the hospital and appreciates the support he is receiving from nevadans and his colleagues in the senate. the driver was uninjured and charged with reckless driving. we will keep you posted and wish the reid family the best planned reid's wife and daughter a full and safe recovery. we'll be right back. massaging gel insoles give you outrageous comfort, all-day-guaranteed. woah. it's not too far... (announcer) are you gellin'? dr. scholl's. how do we know how how many town roads we need? the census helps us know exactly what we need, so everyone can get their fair share of funding.
we can't move forward until you mail it back. 2010 census. not that long ago, many families were priced out of an overheated housing market. but the times have changed. get the facts at remax.com. today, the dream of owning a home seems more attainable than ever. nobody sells more real estate than re/max. visit remax.com today.
i had a sit-down interview with house speaker nancy pelosi. coming up here in this part, where she seems to get aggravated with me. i asked her about something that was going on in the capitol while i was there, which is that house republicans were trying to turn the story of eric massa's resignation into a nancy pelosi ethics scandal. that plan was not working out very well for the republicans. but i asked the speaker about it in the middle of the afternoon today. here's what she said. as we move towards what seems to be the very end of the health care fight, republicans are trying to make a whole new issue and i have to ask you about this because it is the story of the day from the republican p perspecti perspective. they are trying to make a story about how allegations against congressman massa were handled. do you support the ethics
committee supporting how the allegations were hand snld. >> that is what we voted on the floor to refer it to the ethics committee. sure. >> in terms of how the allegations were handled, when was your office first told about concerns about his behavior? >> well, any report to our office was in february that there was an allegation against him and at the same time it was referred to the ethic committee and that was the appropriate route. i'm now finding out there had been a conversation earlier but it had nothing to do to come close to any kind of allegation. it was repeated something that had been in the newspaper the day before. in terms of anything that is worthy of the attention of the ethics committee, that was in february when it was reported to the ethics committee. >> just to be clear, that earlier, several months ago allegation, october, i believe, not an allegation but something was referred to. staffers in your office, member
services director -- >> a staffer. >> it is not something your staff believed rose to the level of an allegation? >> there are all kinds of articles written about many members of the congress. besides i served on the ethics committee for seven years. when i say served it was almost like a sentence. it is very tough duty and i commend the people who serve there and the service they provide to the congress, but the last thing we would have wanted was any intervention from the speaker's office. there is an appropriate way for an allegation to be sent to the ethics committee and it shouldn't be something that is the speaker's office is the melting -- or the mixing pot. >> are you troubled -- i mean, congressman massa's behavior around the time he resigned and since he resigned has been inconsistent. he initially for example made an
allegation he was being forced out because he was a vote against health care. he recanted that. he made other inconsistent statements. we are left with the impression he may have behaved inappropriately. >> that is up to the ethics committee to investigate. the fact is you started this conversation in the right way. it is another subject that people would like to be a distraction. i will not take my eye off the ball to pass health care reform right now and build support for what we are doing. the people like to mix those two. not you, but the republicans. you're never to be taken for one of them. i know you are nonpartisan, but in any event, for me, i'm not paying a lot of attention to some of that. it is appropriately being dealt with where it is being dealt with. what i'm paying attention to is how do we get to what we dreamed of to follow in the footsteps of
shurkt, health care for all american. it is a very heavy lift. very labor intensive. our members have spent a great deal of time on it and we want to protect that investment. one year ago, march 5th, the president called democrats and republicans, house and senate to the white house to begin a bipartisan dialogue. he had outside stake holders, whether it is childrens' health experts, the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, community health center, every aspect of health care and health insurance at the white house to try to find common ground to go forward. one year later he had a similar -- a summit that was just house and senate, democratic and republican leadership to see if there was any common ground or reach out one more time to include republicans suggestions in the bill. now we are ready to act upon those suggestions and the great
work that the president has done. let me say this about president obama, were it not for his leadership we would not be right now on the verge of passing something very historic. >> house speaker nancy pelosi there pivoting away from a discussion about the controversy swirling around eric massa's resignation to bring the discussion back to health care. the speaker making clear she thinks republicans are harping on the massa issue as a way of trying to distract from the end game in health reform. when i pressed the speaker about what she had been told about the allegations she insisted before her office and house majority leader steny hoyer's office heard about the most recent allegations which went to the ethics committee and blew the whole story open and resulted in mr. massa resigning, the only thing her office heard about mr. massa did not in her words come close to any kind of allegation. she said that the issue that had been referred to her office back
in october of last year was a minor issue that repeated something that had been written in a newspaper article. she was talking about this article from the "evening tribune" out of hornell, new york. it is a day in the life piece. it describes him living in a townhouse with admittedly poorly paid staffers to save them all money. the house voted almost unanimously to let the ethics committee to investigate whether allegations regarding mr. massa were dealt with appropriately, he would not be the subject of an investigation because he is no longer a member of the house. you could almost smell how excited the republicans were to make this an anti-democratic leadership issue today. they were excited about that prospect for some number of minutes this afternoon. for some of those minutes i was actually inside the u.s. capitol
and i swear you could smell it. any attempt to make this a political stink today seems to have fizzled out rather quickly. nice try though. would you like to see our new police department? yeah, all right. this way. and here it is. completely networked. so, anything happening, suz? she's all good. oh, my gosh. is that my car? [ whirring ] [ female announcer ] the new community. see it. live it. share it. on the human network. cisco. a tornado hits, air life denver takes off... their night-vision goggles keeping the rescue mission safe... and powering those goggles-- the only battery air life trusts: duracell. trusted everywhere. to finish what you started today. for the aches and sleeplessness in between, there's new motrin pm. no other medicine, not even advil pm, is more effective for pain and sleeplessness.
new motrin pm. ( sniffing ) missing something? now at sears optical, get 2 pairs of glasses for $99.99. with bifocals just $25 more per pair. sears optical. don't miss a thing. sir? finding everything okay? i work for a different insurance company. my auto policy's just getting a little too expensive. with progressive, you get the "name your price" option, so we build a policy to fit your budget. wow! the price gun. ♪ ah! wish we had this. we'd just tell people what to pay. yeah, we're the only ones that do. i love your insurance! bill? tom? hey! it's an office party! the freedom to name your price. only from progressive. call or click today. these are actual farmers who raise vegetables in campbell's condensed soup. so if you've ever wondered who grew my soup, well, here they are. ♪ so many, many reasons
effectiveness does jump out at you. under pelosi the house has passed all of the major planks of president obama's first year legislative agenda, the stimulus, the cap-and-trade and health reform. the senate is another story. like a never ending busy signal. at least 290 pieces of legislation passed by the house of representatives this congress including big ones are still sitting in the senate awaiting action. there is no speaker pelosi can do. but she has made known her frustration with the broken senate. she may have gone farther than she has ever gone in saying she wants the senate to get it act together. >> we were in this room, i think, about a year ago, the last time that we sat down. at that time you had just passed the stimulus bill with zero republican votes. that strategy by the
republicans, they came off poorly using that strategy. we didn't know then whether they would keep using that strategy and they really have. so a year later do they still come off poorly for using that strategy or has it been smart? has it made you be adept strategically in order to get around them? >> all i know is what we do. the poster child for the republican strategy is jim bunning. it proves 99 senators are not enough. one senator can hold up unemployment insurance checks. can have people be put out of work or working on highway system and the rest of that because one senator has decided to stand in the way. i don't think that has served the senators, the congress well or the american people. i don't think the american people are served well by obstructionist strategy -- tactics of the republican senators. 60 senators on every possible initiative, senator reid ends up
having the votes but he doesn't have the time to get around to much more legislation because of all the procedural tactics that are necessary in terms of of votes. >> because of the rules of the senate, there has been so much attention on what it takes to get things through the senate. meanwhile, you in the house have passed roughly the entire presidential agenda. >> we have. >> the major components. while republicans are pursuing this unified no on everything strategy. what are the challenges to you? what is the strategy you approach to get things passed with zero republicans on everything major? >> we did have republican votes on the energy and climate change bill. we had a few there. a large number of tet the votes sitting on the senate side to be passed passed 70% with a large number of republican votes. you hear more about the controversial pieces of
legislation, those that are really the pillars of the obama budget. education, energy, climate change and health care. whether are the thee areas, energy, education and innovation together and health care, how he wants to stabilize the economy, create jobs, bring down the deficit, lower taxes for the american people around this job creating agenda. >> on the matter of the house and the senate, as you said, hundreds of pieces of legislation have passed the house, stalled in the senate. senator schumer said the senate rules committee is going to have hearing on changing filibuster rules. senator reid says it looks like we are going to have to likely change the senate rules. you are not in the business of giving them advice. is that a relief to you?
>> let me say that, the rules of the senate are one thing. i won't comment on that. i don't invite their comments on our rules so even stephen. the problem is the obstructionism of the republican senators. the rules that enable them to do that, but it is their decision to stop the obama agenda by making everything have to have 60 votes. now, you could be respectful of using it with care and in certain circumstances, but for every initiative you are really in the position of stopping the president's agenda. they know the president wants to end business as usual conducted in washington, d.c. where the special interests, the agents of the status quo spend endless money to keep it -- to hold us back from the future and the president has a vision to take
us there, he has described to us so many times. the president has said more eloquently than anyone, we will measure our success by the progress being made by america's working families. we believe this health care bill is important to that. the difference between the democrats and republicans on that subject is helping american families make progress we want to regulate the insurance agency. the republicans do not. they'll do anything to protect their friends in the insurance industry and that's what this is about. so they can talk about their rules and the rest and that would be good. because i think it is shameful that one senator, senator bunning, was able to, as i said earlier, 99 senators are not enough, one senator could cause so much damage. again, i wish them well in the review of their rules. the american people have to make a judgment about the obstructionism about the republican senators. there is more from the
speaker of the house nancy pelosi including her position on accountability and the bush administration, something no one really wants to talk about in washington anymore but i do. her response when i ask her if she regrets not having pursued impeachment of president bush over the iraq war. and chris dodd thought he could hammer out a finance reform bill with bob corker. today someone wakes up screaming in a cold sweat vowing never to try that again. that's next. stick around. dude, you're freaking me out. ah! ♪ wah! ♪ both: whoa! ahhh! ♪ hey! getting really sick of this, gary. [ male announcer ] now try planters almonds with sea salt and olive oil.
[ male announcer ] now try planters almonds man: be kind to your eyes with transitions lenses. transitions adapt to changing light so you see your whole day comfortably and conveniently while protecting your eyes from the sun. ask your eyecare professional which transitions lenses are right for you. woman: discover the protection, comfort and convenience of transitions lenses for the entire family at transitions.com/walmart or visit a walmart vision center today.
still ahead, more of my interview with speaker of the house nancy pelosi. why didn't the house of representatives move to hold the bush administration accountable when the house had the chance to do so, like say when the bush administration was still in office? speaker pelosi's answer in just a moment. but first, last night we took connecticut senator chris dodd to task for having conceded, sacrificed and otherwised abandoned the majority democrats have in the senator majority but in the banking committee.
with the extra three seats, chairman dodd should be able to get a tough financial reform bill through even if he had to do it on a party line vote. instead, like senator max baucus did with health reform last summer senator dodd atted as if the last election did not happen. see no majority. hear no majority. use no majority. rather than work in committee, senator dodd trying to work directly one-on-one with republican senator bob corker of tennessee to get something passed on financial reform. they worked mano a mano. he kept making winking gestures and passing notes with and making mooney eyes at the loan shark industry, i mean payday lenders, i mean loan sharks.
finally chris dodd cut his republican friend loose, announcing as senate banking chairman he will present his own wall street reform proposal on monday without a republican co-writer. senator corker, the republican senator dodd just broke up with proclaimed himself very disappointed in this development, which is just heartbreaking. very sad. moving on. next, both political parties, the democrats and the republicans are engaged in a race to be the most anti-earmark party ever. ever. ever. ever. ever. unfortunately for republicans they have a whole lot of catching up to do. there is a ban on earmarks on private industry, allowing ah member of congress to steer an amount of money like a no-bid control to a private contractor in one's district. that was not anti-er mark enough
for some republicans. they called for aller marks to be banned, 10 other congressional leaders, who called all earmarks "symbol of a broken washington." the symbol may look like this. those very same ten republicans have collectively requested more than $240 million in earmarks in the last two years. and now they're the ones making a principled call to eliminate earmarks. it is especially rich when you consider that when republicans controlled the house the number of earmarks quadrupled from about 4,000 in 1994 to 15,000 in 2005 before the democrats beat them in the elections and took over the majority in 2006. so late today in an effort to come from behind to win the we're super against earmarks race, the whole house republican caucus huddled and agreed to a one-year moratorium on earmarks.
one year moratorium, not forever, just one year. one election year. which could be pretty good strategy especially if nobody remembers what happened before today. finally, when president obama gave his speech about afghanistan back in december at west point, he announced the number of u.s. troops in afghanistan would be dramatically increased but he said that increase would precede us getting out of afghanistan starting on a specific date. >> additional american and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to afghan forces and begin the transfer of our forces out of afghanistan in july of 2011. >> july of 2011. after the president gave that speech saying we would start to leave afghanistan in july of 2011, there seemed to be waffling on the leaving date by member of his administration.
waffling no more. defense secretary bob gates said you can put that start date for withdraw in your date book in pen. >> as conditions on the ground permit, between now and july 2011, we might be able to begin the process of transitions to afghan security control. i think it will be a process. between now and july of 2011, it would have to be conditions based. we will begin that transition no later than july of 2011, but the pace will depend also on the conditions on the ground. >> so if the afghan troops are ready sooner, great. but as he said, we will begin to transition out no later than -- no later than july of 2011. so aforementioned waffling be darned. we got it clear as can be from the defense secretary now.
the date president obama gave for starting to leave afghanistan apparently really is the date. july of next year. no later than july of next year at the latest. july 2011 at the latest. roger that. . like our new wood-grilled lobster and shrimp with parmesan scampi... our succulent lobster lover's dream, with both sweet maine and buttery rock lobster tails... and eleven more choices, each served with a salad and our freshly-baked cheddar bay biscuits. come celebrate lobsterfest. right now at red lobster. [ female announcer ] introducing something unexpected to the world of multigrain... taste. delicious new pringles multigrain. new multigrain pops with pringles.
somewhere in america... there's a home by the sea powered by the wind on the plains. there's a hospital where technology has a healing touch. there's a factory giving old industries new life. and there's a train that got a whole city moving again. somewhere in america, the toughest questions are answered every day. because somewhere in america, more than sixty thousand people spend every day answering them. siemens. answers.
more of my interview with house speaker nancy pelosi in just a moment including the part that starts like this. let me also ask you about something that i think is very dear to the heart of a lo of american liberals. what else would you expect? what comes next after this quick break. pleas stay with us.
at the end of my interview with speaker nancy pelosi we talked about thing i'm obsessed with for example accountability for illegal things that happened in government in the last administration. will anyone be held responsible for torture or warrantless wiretapping or the president and vice president saying demon straably untrue things to the public to trick us into a war. if no one gets in trouble does it mean it is defacto legal to do those things because it is proven we don't prosecute them and the supreme court recent ruling in the citizens uniteded allowing for unlimited spending by corporations in political campaigns. mrs. pelosi could not have been clearer about her feel on that.
>> in terms of special interest and big business in our politics, the supreme court ruling in citizens united obviously has the potential of expanding big money in politics beyond anything we've seen in this country. is there a legislative fix, an appropriate legislative response to mitigate the impact of that decision? >> short term and long term. short term, yes. although the supreme court was very, i think, wrong in closing many avenues that we might have had for more fixes, but in any event, to the extent we can in terms of stand by your ad and making sure corporations putting money into campaigns have their ceo identifying with that, making sure we cut off -- make sure it is transparency there between corporations and say the chamber of commerce.
if the corporation is putting in the money, the connection has to be seen there, taking action against federal -- excuse me, foreign entities impacting on our elections. in the short term, chuck schumer and chris holland have that legislation we hope soon. this gives us the opportunity to talk in a very important way about campaign finance reform in terms of public funding of campaigns. what more does the public need to by empowering corporations to make endless contributions. again, the special interests weighing in. not to paint them all with the same brush but, again, the special interest to keep the status quo instead of a new direction for our country. so as one who has for decades, some of them in the congress, some before supported public financing of campaigns, hopefully we can come together.
i know that democrats, republicans and independents did not like that supreme court decision. i hope that we can build a coalition for public financing of campaigns. it will be so much more wholesome for our country, for our -- the democratic process and for the attitude that the public would have toward politics. it's -- again, it's an opening. it's an opening that we haven't had before. and there's a lot of good -- a lot of people working together in a nonpartisan way to get enough members of congress to sign on. so we're excited about that. >> and channeling my liberal brethren from across the country, i'm sure people on the left side of the spectrum in particular -- but i think you're also right to know independents and conservatives as well will be happy to hear about the prospect of public financing for elections. let me also ask you about something that i think is very dear to the heart of american liberals and doesn't get a lot
of traction across the political board right now and that's the issue of accountability for things that happened during the bush administration. torture, warrantless wiretapping, the hijacking of the justice department for partisan political purposes, lies being told to the american people about what the intelligence that we had as a country indicated about weapons of mass destruction in iraq. so on all of those issues, while we can talk comfortably about them and they're not in the heart of political discourse in the country right now, there is a sense in which nobody was ever held accountable for any of those things. does that trouble you? and should we ever expect as a country that people will be held accountable for those crimes? >> well, the president has wanted to go forward, to move on and go forward. there are those of us who supported a commission to review some of those activities but the president has decided to move on. all of the things that you name are important.
an issue -- you said does it bother you -- that bothers me the most is the i shall uft iraq war. there's so much evidence that there was no reason for us to go into that war at that time or go into it, period. but to think that thousands of lives have been lost, lives affected to the tunes of hundreds of thousands, the cost in terms of our military readiness -- it has not made our military stronger. in terms of dollars to the treasury but, again, most of all loss of life our precious treasure, on this war and there was really no price to pay for it. so when you ask what bothers me about it, yes, all of those things do. but i think that the record has to be straight about what a serious mistake the iraq war was. >> do you regret having taken the issue of impeachment off the table in terms of how the president communicated about
that to the country? >> no. i believe that the -- if there was evidence -- if we could have the evidence to impeach the president, then that could come forward. just because i say it's off doesn't mean if the evidence is there it wouldn't go forward. it's not a question of not knowing where the culpability is. it's what you can demonstrate and what you can prove. but i do think that those who had a hand in perpetrating not only going to war but the misrepresentations to the american people -- every piece of evidence that we have points to the fact that there was no reason in terms of weapons of mass destruction to go into iraq. >> even though we were told that there was? >> even though we were told that there was -- that there were. but it is -- it is -- it is -- that -- weapons there. it is one of the great tragedies.
>> madam speaker, you're incredibly busy at this time. i'm all the more grateful that you have taken this time to sit down with us. thanks very much today. good luck. >> thank you. the transcript of my whole interview with speaker pelosi and video clips will be posted at our website tonight along with awkward pictures of me walking into the capitol building before i get into my tv suit looking like a giant first grader heading straight from her first school trip. like an extra from p "elf." "countdown" keith says why it's crucial to have living wills. here, kitty! here, kitty!
oh, just come snuggle with momma! missing something? now at sears optical, get 2 pairs of glasses for $99.99. with bifocals just $25 more per pair. sears optical. don't miss a thing. with bifocals just $25 more per pair. when you least expect it... a regular moment can become romantic. and when it does, men with erectile dysfunction can be more confident in their ability to be ready with cialis. with two clinically proven dosing options, you can choose the moment that's right for you and your partner. 36-hour cialis and cialis for daily use. cialis for daily use is a low-dose tablet you take every day, so you can be ready anytime the moment's right.
>> tell your doctor about your medical condition and all medications and ask if you're healthy enough for sexual activity. >> don't take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. >> don't drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache, or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than 4 hours. >> if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, stop taking cialis and call your doctor right away. >> 36-hour cialis or cialis for daily use. ask your doctor if cialis is right for you. you can be ready for your moment with cialis. i have a correction to make. you know how people sometimes confuse congressman pete sessions with senator jeff sessions or, say, roger federer
with quentin tarantino. i had one of those yen or yang moment last night when i talked about governor mcdonnell. as you know right after he was elected rescinded his state's old anti-discrimination order and replaced one that specifically doesn't protect gay people from discrimination. opposing gay rights is nothing new for the governor. his grad school thesis condemned co-habitors, homosexuals or fornicators and said public policy should be directed against them. co-habitiators, fornicators. i'm all three. i said on the air he wrote that at liberty university and for the second straight time i was wrong about that. mr. mcdonnell was actually a grad student at regent p university, a christian college in virginia beach founded by pat robertson. liberty university, on the other hand, is a christian school in l